Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.27 seconds)

Afr M/S. Laxsan Associates vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opp. Parties on 28 March, 2024

3. Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, having satisfied the requirement of the RFP issued under Annexure-2, participated in the tender process and // 5 // qualified in the technical evaluation. Thereafter, in the financial bid though it was L1 bidder, its financial bid was not accepted on the flimsy ground that its past performance relating to deployment of manpower in RTO offices was not satisfactory and it has not deposited statutory dues in respect of manpower supplied. It is further contended that while participating in the tender in pre bid meeting if the said question was raised, the petitioner could have clarified the position with regard to past performance relating to deployment of manpower in RTO offices. It is further contended that so far as clearance of statutory dues is concerned, the petitioner has cleared all the EPF and allied dues vide Annexure-5. When there are no statutory dues to be paid by the petitioner, the authority has misconstrued in issuing letter dated 06.10.2023 and rejecting the financial bid of the petitioner. It is further contended that since the letter dated 06.10.2023 under Annexure-1 has been issued without specifying with regard to violation of any condition of the tender, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Thereby, the decision making process of // 6 // the authority being arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law, this Court can exercise power of judicial review to prevent arbitrariness and unreasonableness in the decision of the authority concerned. To substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon the judgments in Mohabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation, AIR 1990 SC 1031 : (1990) 3 SCC 752; Reliance Energy Ltd. and Anr. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd. & Ors,, (2007) 8 SCC 1; Adani Gas Limited v. Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board & Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 529; M/s. D.K. Engineering & Construction v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2016(II) ILR-CUT-515; M/s. Famous Security Services v. State of Odisha, AIR 2021 (Odisha) 57 and Mihan India Ltd. v. GMR Airports Ltd., AIR 2022 SC 2745.
Orissa High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

M/S. Mdsg Construction Pvt vs State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opposite ... on 21 November, 2022

5. Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner contended Page 1 of 2 that for the work in question, agreement was executed for the period from 28.03.2022 to 27.02.2023. But when the period is subsisting, the order dated 09.11.2022 was passed, by which closure proposal for the work in question was approved. It is contended that no provision has been mentioned in the order of approval for closure proposal nor has it been placed that any condition has been violated, nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner while passing such order. As such, it has only mentioned that the petitioner has not progressed as required to be done by it. If that be so, as per the clause-2(a) of the conditions of the contract, compensation has to be paid for the delayed execution of work. Instead of doing so, the authority passed the order for closure of the work, which is not permissible, without assigning any reason. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Famous Security Services v. State of Odisha, AIR 2021 ORISSA 57.
Orissa High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1